Question

    You may think that creativity and artistic judgment are what sets humans apart from artificial intelligence (AI). Robots will be washing our windows long before they start creating masterpieces Right?

Not necessarily. At Amper Music (www.ampermusic.com), you can make the music you want based on mood, instrument, speed and length. You click “Render,” and boom! There’s your original piece, not only composed (作曲) but also “performed” and “mixed” by AI software.

But something has kept bothering me: What happens in a world where effort and scarcity (稀缺) are no longer part of the definition of art? A mass-produced print of the Mona Lisa is worth less than the actual Leonardo painting. Why? Scarcity—there’s only one of the original. But Amper turns. professional-quality original piece of music every time you click “Render.” It puts us in a strange world where works of art are unique but require almost zero human effort to produce. Should anyone pay for these things? And if an artist puts AI masterpieces up for sale, what should the price be?

That’s not just a thought experiment either. Soon the question “What’s the value of AI artwork and music?” will start impacting flesh—and—blood consumers. It has already, in fact.

Earlier, reporters discovered something suspicious (可疑的) about many playlists of Spotify—another online music service. According to the report, the composers and bands who wrote the songs appeared to be nonexistent. These playlists have names like Peaceful Piano and Ambient Chill—exactly the kind of music AI software is good at.

Is Spotify using software to compose music to avoid paying fees to human musicians? The New York Times reported that the tracks with false names have been played 500 million times, which would ordinarily have cost Spotify $3 million in payments.

But Spotify has firmly denied that the tracks in question were created by “fake” artists to avoid payments: while posted under pennames, they were written by actual people receiving actual money for work that they own. But the broader issue remains. Why couldn’t Spotify, or any music service, start using AI to produce free music to save itself money? Automation (自动化) is beginning to replace millions of human taxi drivers, truck drivers and fast-food workers. Why should artists and musicians be an exception to the same economics?

Should there be anything in place—a union, a law---to stop that from happening? Or will we always value human-produced art and music more than machine-made stuff? Once we’ve answered those questions, we can settle the really big one: When an AI—composed song wins the Grammy, who will be awarded?

1.What do we know from the example of Amper Music?

A.It doesn’t need any human effort to compose music.

B.It allows ordinary people to perform their own music.

C.It makes a challenge to the traditional definition of art.

D.It produces music works that are similar in styles.

2.The underlined part in Paragraph 4 implies that ________.

A.it is hard to tell AI artworks apart from human artworks

B.people will be charged for AI art in the near future

C.people don’t know what price of AI art is reasonable

D.the scarcity of AI artworks means it is one of a copy

3.Spotify was covered in the media because ________.

A.AI music can be performed free of charge

B.its musicians might not be paid fairly

C.playlists of its music did not actually exist

D.AI software has replaced human musicians

4.The writing purpose of this passage is to ________.

A.draw deserved attention to AI-made artworks

B.warn against the immediate threat from Al art

C.support the use of Al software in art creation

D.solve misunderstandings about AI’s role in art

Answer

1.C

2.B

3.B

4.A

【解析】

这是一篇议论文。文章主要讨论了人工智能艺术品和音乐是否应该收费的问题，引起人们对人工智能艺术作品的注意。

1.细节理解题。根据文章第一段中 “You may think that creativity and artistic judgment are what sets humans apart from artificial intelligence (AI).” 你可能认为创造力和艺术判断力人类与人工智能（AI）的区别。和第二段中“Not necessarily. At Amper Music (www.ampermusic.com), you can make the music you want based on mood, instrument, speed and length. You click “Render,” and boom! There’s your original piece, not only composed (作曲) but also “performed” and “mixed” by AI software.” 不一定。在Amper Music（www.ampermusic.com），你可以根据心情、乐器、速度和长度来制作你想要的音乐。你点击“提交”，然后砰的一声！这是你的原创作品，不仅是由人工智能软件创作的，而且是由人工智能软件“执行”和“混合”的。由此可知，Amper Music是对传统的艺术定义提出了挑战。结合选项，故选C。

2.推理判断题。根据第四段中“Soon the question “What’s the value of AI artwork and music?” will start impacting flesh—and—blood consumers.” 很快就会有一个问题“人工智能艺术品和音乐的价值是什么？”将开始影响有血有肉的消费者。由此可以推断出，人们开始重视音乐的价值，考虑是否要收费。故划线句That’s not just a thought experiment either这不仅仅是一个实验，而且AI做出来的艺术可能会收费。结合选项，故选B。

3.推理判断题。根据文章第六段中“Why couldn’t Spotify, or any music service, start using AI to produce free music to save itself money? Automation (自动化) is beginning to replace millions of human taxi drivers, truck drivers and fast-food workers. Why should artists and musicians be an exception to the same economics?” 为什么Spotify或任何音乐服务不能开始使用人工智能制作免费音乐来为自己省钱?自动化即将开始代替数以百万计的出租车司机,卡车司机和快餐的工人吗？为什么艺术家和音乐家应该是同一种经济的例外呢？由此可知，作者认为音乐家受到了不公平的待遇。故Spotify被媒体报道，因为它的音乐家可能得不到公平的报酬。故选B。

4.推理判断题。根据文章最后一段中“Should there be anything in place—a union, a law---to stop that from happening? Or will we always value human-produced art and music more than machine-made stuff? Once we’ve answered those questions, we can settle the really big one: When an AI—composed song wins the Grammy, who will be awarded?” 是否应该有什么措施——工会、法律——来阻止这种情况的发生？或者，我们会永远珍视人类创造的艺术和音乐而不是机器制造的东西吗？一旦我们回答了这些问题，我们就可以解决真正重要的一个问题：当一首由人工智能创作的歌曲赢得格莱美奖时，谁将获奖？由此可知，作者写这篇文章的目的是为了引起人们对人工智能艺术作品的注意。故选A。